Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Over summer I have been reading Matthew in
Greek as part of reading the whole NT in its original language. I have found a
number of interesting things. One is the implications of the parable of the
tenants in Matt 21:33–46 for the status of the land of Israel. Of course, the
land of Israel is an area of massive debate. Some Christians and Jews consider
that land the possession of the Jews by divine prerogative based on God’s
granting the land to the people of Abraham back in the Pentateuch. Others claim
that that this is a false reading of what Jesus was all about, that the land
does not figure prominently in the NT and that Jesus is the locus of God’s work;
the “land” if there is any, is the world, and that the contemporary Jewish
claims to divine prerogative are an anachronism at best. I have found myself
pondering this again and again as I watch news items about Palestine/Israel; as
I hear speakers from one side or the other; as I read on these issues. I find
myself more and more coming down on the side of the latter view, that the Christian
message of a Kingdom is not about a piece of dirt, a building like a temple or
church, but about Christ, the completion of all God’s promises. Now God is not
focused on one nation, but on all of humanity, and hope is found in the living
temple, Jesus.

This was
confirmed to me as I read the Parable of the Tenants. In the parable Jesus
launches a direct attack on the leaders of Israel—they get that in the end,
wanting to arrest him (v.45). In the parable he speaks of a master of a house,
who plants a vineyard. In the Biblical tradition, this is definitely God the
Father (cf. Isa 5). He sets it up well fencing it, setting up a winepress, and
building a tower i.e. the loving care of God setting up the people in the land
of Canaan. It then speaks of servants coming to the vineyard. The allegorical
analogies are not tight, but likely these servants who came to get fruit refer
to the prophets God raised up who preached that Israel would produce “fruit of
righteousness” i.e. lives conformed to Torah (cf. Phil 1:11; Prov 11:30; Amos
6:12). Those in the possession of the vineyard are not the owners who have
possession of the land as of some divine right, but are tenants. According to
BDAG the tenant or geōrgos is a farmer, a vine-dresser, or a tenant
farmer i.e. “one who does agricultural work on a contractual basis.” These are
not owners of the vineyard, but are employed by the owner (God) to care for it.
Verse 40 describes the owner as Lord (kyrios) of the vineyard, clearly
alluding to Yahweh in the biblical story. Clearly, in beating, killing, and
stoning the servants of the owner, the tenants violated their contract to look
after the vineyard and produce fruit for its owner. This history of killing God’s
prophets is clearly articulated in Matt 23:29–36 where Jesus rebukes the
leaders of Israel for honoring the prophets in their death but in reality rejecting
them and killing them.

The parable
then anticipates the coming of the son of the owner, clearly alluding to Jesus
(v.37), only for the tenants to state “this is the heir. Come, let us kill him
and have his inheritance” and then throwing him out of the vineyard and killing
him (vv.36–39). Jesus is heir of all things, namely the world, including
Israel. They were doing what all despotic false claimants to power do, seeking
to take power by force—the antithesis of the revealed son of God who renounced harpagmos
(violent force, robbery) to take his world (Phil 2:6). The parable ends
horrifically with a warning that the owner of the vineyard will come and take vengeance
on the tenants, killing them. This can anticipate the destruction of Judea and
Jerusalem in a.d. 70 or the
eschatological destruction of those who reject God and his word—likely both are
in mind.

All this
points to the people of Israel not being “owners” of any part of God’s world
whether the land variously called Palestine or Israel, or any other part.
Rather, they, like us all, were tenants of that particular piece of land. Due
to their failure, their right of ownership was taken by God. It would seem to
me then that it is a false claim to argue for privilege over the land in the
modern conflicts. Indeed, it is a false claim for any people to claim ownership
over any land. All land is owned by God, and we are his tenants. We are
expected to produce fruit. I suspect all lands are subject to God’s visitation
and the same expectation of bearing fruit. I suspect he will act when he finds
that people are failing to do so. What do you think?